Utsob Roy
This book neither dives deep into the subject nor is a textbook. It is more of an overview of the subject and a survey of the state of its development.
In various branches of science, we encounter systems regularly. Von Bertalanffy defines systems as such:
A system can be defined as a set of elements standing in interrelations. Interrelation means that elements, p, stand in relations, R, so that the behavior of an element p in R is different from its behavior in another relation, R′. If the behaviors in R and R′ are not different, there is no interaction, and the elements behave independently with respect to the relations R and R′.
According to von Bertalanffy, some phenomena can only be understood/interpreted at the system level:
Nevertheless, the necessity and feasibility of a systems approach became apparent only recently. Its necessity resulted from the fact that the mechanistic scheme of isolable causal trains and meristic treatment had proved insufficient to deal with theoretical problems, especially in the biosocial sciences, and with the practical problems posed by modern technology.
His aim was to establish a theory for systems that is applicable to all systems.
The implication of this idea is a paradigm shift. But, this is not only an ambitious idea. The author, using his multidisciplinary knowledge, mathematics, and reasoning— has given a sufficiently compelling demonstration of what he wanted to achieve.
I will not agree with everything the author said, though. For example, he was unable to see how music, culture etc. are useful for survival:
Greek sculpture, Renaissance painting. German music—indeed, any aspect of culture— has nothing to do with utility, or with the better survival of individuals or nations.
Culture actually is very important for our survival. It enables us to achieve higher, and more complex organisation, often spanning lifetimes of multiple generations.
But these are minor things. His main point remains valid. If we think from a system perspective, many of our current ideas will need radical reevaluation. The author reevaluated stress like this:
Also the principle of stress, so often invoked in psychology, psychiatry and psychosomatics, needs some reevaluation. As everything in the world, stress too is an ambivalent thing. Stress is not only a danger to life to be controlled and neutralized by adaptive mechanisms; it also creates higher life. If life, after disturbance from outside, had simply returned to the so-called homeostatic equilibrium, it would never have progressed beyond the amoeba which, after all, is the best adapted creature in the world—it has survived billions of years from the primeval ocean to the present day.
In this light, modern approaches to creating a stress-free environment seem not only unnecessary but even harmful.
Von Bertelanffy belonged to an age when scientists used to study not only their own little scoped part of science but science in general, philosophy, art, and life as a whole. He had his failings and moments of shameful inhumanity.2 But, academically, he was one of the finest of his age. It shows in his work.
Originally posted at hermitage.utsob.me.
This book neither dives deep into the subject nor is a textbook. It is more of an overview of the subject and a survey of the state of its development.
In various branches of science, we encounter systems regularly. Von Bertalanffy defines systems as such:
A system can be defined as a set of elements standing in interrelations. Interrelation means that elements, p, stand in relations, R, so that the behavior of an element p in R is different from its behavior in another relation, R′. If the behaviors in R and R′ are not different, there is no interaction, and the elements behave independently with respect to the relations R and R′.
According to von Bertalanffy, some phenomena can only be understood/interpreted at the system level:
Nevertheless, the necessity and feasibility of a systems approach became apparent only recently. Its necessity resulted from the fact that the mechanistic scheme of isolable causal trains and meristic treatment had proved insufficient to deal with theoretical problems, especially in the biosocial sciences, and with the practical problems posed by modern technology.
His aim was to establish a theory for systems that is applicable to all systems.
The implication of this idea is a paradigm shift. But, this is not only an ambitious idea. The author, using his multidisciplinary knowledge, mathematics, and reasoning— has given a sufficiently compelling demonstration of what he wanted to achieve.
I will not agree with everything the author said, though. For example, he was unable to see how music, culture etc. are useful for survival:
Greek sculpture, Renaissance painting. German music—indeed, any aspect of culture— has nothing to do with utility, or with the better survival of individuals or nations.
Culture actually is very important for our survival. It enables us to achieve higher, and more complex organisation, often spanning lifetimes of multiple generations.
But these are minor things. His main point remains valid. If we think from a system perspective, many of our current ideas will need radical reevaluation. The author reevaluated stress like this:
Also the principle of stress, so often invoked in psychology, psychiatry and psychosomatics, needs some reevaluation. As everything in the world, stress too is an ambivalent thing. Stress is not only a danger to life to be controlled and neutralized by adaptive mechanisms; it also creates higher life. If life, after disturbance from outside, had simply returned to the so-called homeostatic equilibrium, it would never have progressed beyond the amoeba which, after all, is the best adapted creature in the world—it has survived billions of years from the primeval ocean to the present day.
In this light, modern approaches to creating a stress-free environment seem not only unnecessary but even harmful.
Von Bertelanffy belonged to an age when scientists used to study not only their own little scoped part of science but science in general, philosophy, art, and life as a whole. He had his failings and moments of shameful inhumanity.2 But, academically, he was one of the finest of his age. It shows in his work.
Originally posted at hermitage.utsob.me.
This book neither dives deep into the subject nor is a textbook. It is more of an overview of the subject and a survey of the state of its development.
According to von Bertalanffy, some phenomena can only be understood/interpreted at the system level:
Nevertheless, the necessity and feasibility of a systems approach became apparent only recently. Its necessity resulted from the fact that the mechanistic scheme of isolable causal trains and meristic treatment had proved insufficient to deal with theoretical problems, especially in the biosocial sciences, and with the practical problems posed by modern technology.
In various branches of science, we encounter systems regularly. Von Bertalanffy's aim was to establish a theory for systems that is applicable to all systems.
Implication of this idea is a paradigm shift. But, this is not only an ambitious idea. The author, using his multidisciplinary knowledge, mathematics, and reasoning— has given a sufficiently compelling demonstration of what he wanted to achieve.
I will not agree on everything the author said, though. For example he was unable to see how music, culture etc. are useful for survival:
Greek sculpture, Renaissance painting. German music—indeed, any aspect of culture— has nothing to do with utility, or with the better survival of individuals or nations.
Culture is actually very important for our survival. It enables us to achieve higher, and more complex organization, often spanning lifetimes of multiple generations.
But, these are minor things. His main remains valid. It deeply inspired me to try thinking from a system perspective more.
Originally posted at hermitage.utsob.me.
This book neither dives deep into the subject nor is a textbook. It is more of an overview of the subject and a survey of the state of its development.
According to von Bertalanffy, some phenomena can only be understood/interpreted at the system level:
Nevertheless, the necessity and feasibility of a systems approach became apparent only recently. Its necessity resulted from the fact that the mechanistic scheme of isolable causal trains and meristic treatment had proved insufficient to deal with theoretical problems, especially in the biosocial sciences, and with the practical problems posed by modern technology.
In various branches of science, we encounter systems regularly. Von Bertalanffy's aim was to establish a theory for systems that is applicable to all systems.
Implication of this idea is a paradigm shift. But, this is not only an ambitious idea. The author, using his multidisciplinary knowledge, mathematics, and reasoning— has given a sufficiently compelling demonstration of what he wanted to achieve.
I will not agree on everything the author said, though. For example he was unable to see how music, culture etc. are useful for survival:
Greek sculpture, Renaissance painting. German music—indeed, any aspect of culture— has nothing to do with utility, or with the better survival of individuals or nations.
Culture is actually very important for our survival. It enables us to achieve higher, and more complex organization, often spanning lifetimes of multiple generations.
But, these are minor things. His main remains valid. It deeply inspired me to try thinking from a system perspective more.
Originally posted at hermitage.utsob.me.
Literature is anguish.
It is also the fourth wall of a comic panel. It is also the sky beyond the roof, a ship deck in a storm. It is a hammer that must put a blow right into our self-assurance. And, the Ta-Nehisi Coates I have read do just that.
About a year back, I met a middle-aged person. The now ongoing Palestine conflict has just started back then. That person believed that whatever was happening to civilian Palestinians was happening for good. He was an Islamophobe of particular brutality.
I know he was bullied for being an atheist in a Muslim-majority country; I know drug abuse also contributed to this bitterness. But, mostly, it was propaganda. It was a lack of critical thinking. It was the lack of knowledge— of human cruelty that found its outlet in power. Power makes everyone an oppressor without failure.
Ta-Nehisi Coates made a point of that. I can try, too. But, I know very well, being a minority in many axes myself, no one will understand, except the oppressed.
In the end, this book saddened me. Because I know humanity is beyond saving.
Originally posted at hermitage.utsob.me.
Literature is anguish.
It is also the fourth wall of a comic panel. It is also the sky beyond the roof, a ship deck in a storm. It is a hammer that must put a blow right into our self-assurance. And, the Ta-Nehisi Coates I have read do just that.
About a year back, I met a middle-aged person. The now ongoing Palestine conflict has just started back then. That person believed that whatever was happening to civilian Palestinians was happening for good. He was an Islamophobe of particular brutality.
I know he was bullied for being an atheist in a Muslim-majority country; I know drug abuse also contributed to this bitterness. But, mostly, it was propaganda. It was a lack of critical thinking. It was the lack of knowledge— of human cruelty that found its outlet in power. Power makes everyone an oppressor without failure.
Ta-Nehisi Coates made a point of that. I can try, too. But, I know very well, being a minority in many axes myself, no one will understand, except the oppressed.
In the end, this book saddened me. Because I know humanity is beyond saving.
Originally posted at hermitage.utsob.me.
This year (2024) I have collected as many literary and cultural references I can find in this note.
To me, this is Alan Moor's greatest work. He is so clear, and so in command of the ideas he wanted to expose, I couldn't find a place where they got watered down which is so much common in comics.
Most of the characters in V for Vendetta are complex. Seldom there is a major character like Bishop Lilliman who is typical. So well-crafted the characters are, their inner struggles, and conflicts with the world out that they felt real, yet full of surprise. Moore has shown a mastery in psychology which I consider a hallmark of great fiction writers.
However, the characters are only backdrops here. Alan Moore used these characters to effectively convey some very elaborate ideas— freedom, anarchy, justice, integrity, etc.
So, when V started his vendetta, it was not only against some people. It is against the system, even against the lack of aesthetics that the system enforces (hence the theatrical nature of V).
This year (2024) I have collected as many literary and cultural references I can find in this note.
To me, this is Alan Moor's greatest work. He is so clear, and so in command of the ideas he wanted to expose, I couldn't find a place where they got watered down which is so much common in comics.
Most of the characters in V for Vendetta are complex. Seldom there is a major character like Bishop Lilliman who is typical. So well-crafted the characters are, their inner struggles, and conflicts with the world out that they felt real, yet full of surprise. Moore has shown a mastery in psychology which I consider a hallmark of great fiction writers.
However, the characters are only backdrops here. Alan Moore used these characters to effectively convey some very elaborate ideas— freedom, anarchy, justice, integrity, etc.
So, when V started his vendetta, it was not only against some people. It is against the system, even against the lack of aesthetics that the system enforces (hence the theatrical nature of V).